Let's say you have a function foo() compiled into a program that is running on Unix.
While the program is running, can one "replace" the function foo by dynamically loading an object file containining a modified version of foo()?
On an embedded system I worked on in the past, we could unprotect the text segment and then essentially "patch" the address of foo() to point to the newly modified foo().
It was used for debugging on occasion and with lots of special constraints, on customer sites.
Is this possible on Unix?
It depends on the environment, I suppose. I know that hot-swapping production code is trivial in Erlang modules and not too difficult in Ruby. C might be a different animal.
Yes. That's how debuggers like gdb work, after all.
The short of it is yes, of course it's possible. The question should really be, "how difficult?"
You can load & unload shared libraries (.so & .DLL) all you want on Linux & Windows. Specific variants of UNIX, I'm not sure about. This would be the easiest way to achieve your goal.
If you don't mind getting your hands dirty, you can always patch up the code segment to jump to someplace else out on the heap. I don't recommend it.
Related
I would like to know Why we need to compile the program of progress 4GL? Really what is happening behind there? Why we are getting .r file after compiled the program? When we check the syntax if its correct then we will get one message box 'Syntax is correct' how its finding the errors and showing the messages.Any explanations welcome and appreciated.
Benefits of compiled r-code include:
Syntax checking
Faster execution (r-code executes faster)
Security (r-code is not "human readable" and tampering with it will likely be noticed)
Licensing (r-code runtime licenses are much less expensive)
For "how its finding the errors and showing the messages" -- at a high level it is like any compiler. It evaluates the provided source against a syntax tree and lets you know when you violate the rules. Compiler design and construction is a fairly advanced topic that probably isn't going to fit into a simple SO question -- but if you had something more specific that could stand on its own as a question someone might be able to help.
The short answer is that when you compile, you're translating your program to a language the machine understands. You're asking two different questions here, so let me give you a simple answer to the first: you don't NEED to compile if you're the only one using the program, for example. But in order to have your program optimized (since it's already at the machine language level) and guarantee no one is messing with your logic, we compile the code and usually don't allow regular users to access the source code.
The second question, how does the syntax checker work, I believe it would be better for you to Google and choose some articles to read about compilers. They're complex, but in a nutshell what they do is take what Progress expects as full, operational commands, and compare to what you do. For example, if you do a
Find first customer where customer.active = yes no-error.
Progress will check if customer is a table, if customer.active is a field in that table, if it's the logical type, since you are filtering if it is yes, and if your whole conditions can be translated to one single true or false Boolean value. It goes on to check if you specified a lock (and default to shared if you haven't, like in my example, which is a no-no, by the way), what happens if there are multiple records (since I said first, then get just the first one) and finally what happens if it fails. If you check the find statement, there are more options to customize it, and the compiler will simply compare your use of the statement to what Progress can have for it. And collect all errors if it can't. That's why sometimes compilers will give you generic messages. Since they don't know what you're trying to do, all they can do is tell you what's basically wrong with what you wrote.
Hope this helps you understand.
How are we actually supposed to include our OpenCL code in our C projects?
We can't possibly be supposed to ship our .cl files along with our executable for the executable to find them and load them at runtime, because that's stupid, right?
We can't be supposed to use some stringify macro because a) that's apparently not portable/leads to undefined behaviour and b) it all breaks down if you use commas not enclosed in brackets like when defining many variables of the same type, I've spent an hour here looking for a solution to that and there doesn't seem to be one that actually works and c) that's kind of stupid.
Are we expected to write our code into C string literals like "int x, y;\n" "float4 p;\n"? Because I'm not doing that. Are we supposed to do a C include-style hexdump of our .cl files? That seems inconvenient. What are we actually supposed to do?
It's bad enough that all these approaches basically mean that you have to ship your program with your OpenCL code essentially open sourced when your OpenCL code is probably the last thing you want open sourced, on top of it it seems every OpenCL project I've seen uses one of the approaches listed above, it just doesn't seem right at all, it's like the people who made OpenCL forgot about something.
This thread: OpenCL bytecode running on another card mentions SPIR, a "platform-portable intermediate representation for OpenCL device programs". Other than that, you are basically restrained to the options you already mentioned.
Personally, I began to use C++11 raw string literals to get rid of my nasty stringify-macros. Don't know if C++ is an option for you, however.
Concerning your rejection of the "ship our .cl files along with our executable" approach: I don't see why this is inherently stupid -- the CL "shaders" are an application resource like all other separate files beside the executable, and thus are part of the "application bundle". It's perfectly reasonable to have such kind of files, and each operating system has its way to deal with it (in win32, the program directory is the bundle https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110620-00/?p=10393 , OSX has its own bundle concept, etc...).
Now, if you are worried about other people peeking into your OpenCL code, you can still apply some obfuscation methods (e.g. encrypt your .cl-files by a key which is more or less cleverly hidden in your executable).
[edit/sidenote]: We could also investigate how other companies deal with this issue in the context of, for example, OpenGL/Direct3D shaders. In my limited experience, gaming companies tend to dump their shaders in text form somewhere in their application directory, for all to see (and even to tamper with). So in the gaming world at least, there is no great deal of secrecy in that respect... Wonder what adobe or CAD software companies do in their professional software.
I'm very new to unix programming, so please bear with me. :)
I'd like to pass data between two processes. I was going to use named pipes, but read about these "half-duplex" pipes, and it was very intriguing, so I figured that I would give them a try first.
I have two issues with these pipes thus far:
I haven't figured out how to get execlp to run another application from my child process
Even if I could, debugging is tough because I've only been able to set breakpoints in the parent process
I'm sure there are reasons for these issues. I am starting to wonder if it makes sense to just forget about them and just use named pipes so I can debug each application in a separate instance of eclipse.
If there is any relevant information, please let me know. The code I am using is essentially what it found on tldp.org.
EDIT -- I renamed my question to be about unix pipes in general. I had assumed that for named pipes, I wouldn't have to use fork(), but all of the examples I have seen so far require it. So regardless of half-duplex or named pipes, I'm going to need to be able to debug the child process somehow!
EDIT #2 -- this example clearly shows that what I had seen before (on an IBM link) regarding named pipes wasn't necessarily true.
I recommend two tools:
strace -ff should give you a trace of all significant events, allowing you to examine in detail what's going on, namely, all reads and writes;
lsof allows you to dump file descriptors of involved processes, clearly showing what is connected to what else and, in particular, if you forgot to close() some descriptors and the whole thing deadlocks.
Newbie Common Lisp question here.
Is there a way to reset the state of the environment? What I mean, is there some command that brings the REPL back to the same state it was right after it started up, that is, uninterning all variables, functions, etc. Or if that's not in the Common Lisp standard, is there some extension in SBCL (the implementation I use) to do that?
(EDIT: I know that in SLIME, M-x slime-restart-inferior-lisp does that but I wonder if there's a way without restarting the process)
Not in general, no. I occasionally want to do something like that, so my workflow is generally to create a new package to hold whatever project I'm starting, then when I want to reset things I use DELETE-PACKAGE. I never do any work in the CL-USER package, since different implementations have different things stuffed into it.
Use C-c M-o, as given in REPL menu's Clear Buffer
How can I package my Java application into an executable jar that cannot be decompiled (for example , by Jadclipse)?
You can't. If the JRE can run it, an application can de-compile it.
The best you can hope for is to make it very hard to read (replace all symbols with combinations of 'l' and '1' and 'O' and '0', put in lots of useless code and so on). You'd be surprised how unreadable you can make code, even with a relatively dumb translation tool.
This is called obfuscation and, while not perfect, it's sometimes adequate.
Remember, you can't stop the determined hacker any more than the determined burglar. What you're trying to do is make things very hard for the casual attacker. When presented with the symbols O001l1ll10O, O001llll10O, OO01l1ll10O, O0Ol11ll10O and O001l1ll1OO, and code that doesn't seem to do anything useful, most people will just give up.
First you can't avoid people reverse engineering your code. The JVM bytecode has to be plain to be executed and there are several programs to reverse engineer it (same applies to .NET CLR). You can only make it more and more difficult to raise the barrier (i.e. cost) to see and understand your code.
Usual way is to obfuscate the source with some tool. Classes, methods and fields are renamed throughout the codebase, even with invalid identifiers if you choose to, making the code next to impossible to comprehend. I had good results with JODE in the past. After obfuscating use a decompiler to see what your code looks like...
Next to obfuscation you can encrypt your class files (all but a small starter class) with some method and use a custom class loader to decrypt them. Unfortunately the class loader class can't be encrypted itself, so people might figure out the decryption algorithm by reading the decompiled code of your class loader. But the window to attack your code got smaller. Again this does not prevent people from seeing your code, just makes it harder for the casual attacker.
You could also try to convert the Java application to some windows EXE which would hide the clue that it's Java at all (to some degree) or really compile into machine code, depending on your need of JVM features. (I did not try this.)
GCJ is a free tool that can compile to either bytecode or native code. Keeping in mind, that does sort of defeat the purpose of Java.
A little late I know, but the answer is no.
Even if you write in C and compile to native code, there are dissasemblers / debuggers which will allow people to step through your code. Granted - debugging optimized code without symbolic information is a pain - but it can be done, I've had to do it on occasion.
There are steps that you can take to make this harder - e.g. on windows you can call the IsDebuggerPresent API in a loop to see if somebody is debugging your process, and if yes and it is a release build - terminate the process. Of course a sufficiently determined attacker could intercept your call to IsDebuggerPresent and always return false.
There are a whole variety of techniques that have cropped up - people who want to protect something and people who are out to crack it wide open, it is a veritable arms race! Once you go down this path - you will have to constantly keep updating/upgrading your defenses, there is no stopping.
This not my practical solution but , here i think good collection or resource and tutorials for making it happen to highest level of satisfaction.
A suggestion from this website (oracle community)
(clean way), Obfuscate your code, there are many open source and free
obfuscator tools, here is a simple list of them : [Open source
obfuscators list] .
These tools make your code unreadable( though still you can decompile
it) by changing names. this is the most common way to protect your
code.
2.(Not so clean way) If you have a specific target platform (like windows) or you can have different versions for different platforms,
you can write a sophisticated part of your algorithms in a low level
language like C (which is very hard to decompile and understand) and
use it as a native library in you java application. it is not clean,
because many of us use java for it's cross-platform abilities, and
this method fades that ability.
and this one below a step by step follow :
ProtectYourJavaCode
Enjoy!
Keep your solutions added we need this more.